IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26406 of 2010(A)
1. MEENAKSHY, AGED 79,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
For Respondent :SHRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN, CGC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/12/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.26406 of 2010-A
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ext.P11 order passed by the Central Government rejecting the
application for grant of SSS pension is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the widow of Pappu Damodaran. The application
is based on the claim that he was an active participant of Punnapra-Vayalar
struggle and hence the police arrayed him as an accused in Case No.PE 7/
1122 and C.C.57/1948 of the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. He was
a recipient of State Freedom Fighters Pension and after his death the same
has been granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P2. The petitioner filed the
application for SSS pension as per Ext.P3 in the year 2008. Along with the
application, the NARC from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha,
a certificate of Shri H.K. Chakrapani and the details of the certifier have
been produced. Finally, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in
W.P.C.No.11712/2008 the order has been passed.
3. Mainly it is pointed out in the order that there is no primary
evidence, the NARC is not valid as per the provisions of the Scheme as there
is no official confirmation from the State Government authorities, the State
wpc 26406/2010 2
Government has not recommended the application and the Personal
Knowledge Certificate with thumb impression of Shri H.K. Chakrapani is
not acceptable as its genuineness cannot be verified.
4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon Exts.P12 to P14
produced along with I.A. No.16844/2010 submitted that the records of Case
No.P.E.7/1122 ME are not available and in similar cases the State
Government itself has forwarded the NARC. It is pointed out that this is
evident from Exts.P12 and P14. Ext.P13 is in respect of Shri P.A. Mathew.
In Ext.P14 it is stated, with respect to an application submitted by one Smt.
Omana who is the widow of another freedom fighter Shri K.K. Sreedharan
and who was also involved in Case No.P.E. 7/1122, that various agencies
have reported that the records are not available. Accordingly, the
Government itself forwarded the NARC.
6. It is therefore prayed that the State Government may be directed to
consider the matter afresh and forward a fresh verification-cum-entitlement
report along with an NARC issued by the State Government itself.
7. Herein, there is no primary evidence. What is available is the
certificate of Shri H.K. Chakrapani. Of course, his thumb impression is
shown therein. But there can be method by which the same can be
wpc 26406/2010 3
compared along with his original thumb impression, if available. Therefore,
that alone need not deter the authority from considering the validity of the
application. The Government also can issue an NARC, especially in the
light of Exts.P12 and P14.
8. In that view of the matter, Ext.P11 is quashed. The petitioner will
file an appropriate representation to the State Government producing
Exts.P12 to P14 and thereafter the State Government will consider the
matter afresh. They will issue a proper NARC along with a fresh
verification-cum-entitlement report after verifying the documents produced
by the petitioner including that of the certifier. The same shall be done
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The Central Government will reconsider the matter in the light of
the fresh report, within a further period of three months.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/